MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968241049 · doi:10.1504/ijtlid.2012.050738

Integrating open innovation to new product development - the case of the Brazilian aerospace industry

2012· article· en· W1968241049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fabiano Armellini, Paulo Carlos Kaminski, Catherine Beaudry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceAerospaceOpen innovationEmerging marketsContext (archaeology)BusinessProduct innovationNew product developmentInnovation managementProduct (mathematics)Industrial organizationProcess (computing)MarketingInternationalizationInnovation processKnowledge managementEngineeringInternational tradeComputer scienceWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of recent works point towards open innovation as a new imperative for innovation management. Within more traditional and conservative high-tech sectors such as aerospace, however, the literature on open innovation is fairly limited, even more so in the context of emerging economies. This exploratory paper aims to fill this gap by providing some perspectives from a study whose goal is to identify the implications of the innovation openness paradigm to the product development process in the Brazilian aerospace industry. Using information gathered from Brazilian and Canadian aerospace firms, this paper draws an analogy and raises the hypothesis that companies from emerging economies are more prone to open innovation, since they are often heavily dependent on foreign knowledge and expertise. The findings imply that Brazilian firms should bear in mind that innovation openness is an important aspect to consider when designing an innovation strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and DevelopmentSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207